Given that my lengthy post from this morning (showing screwtape and Azdgar's utter hypocrisy) was instantly deleted without any notification to me from an Admin or Moderator, it seemed very suspect how that occured. Azdgari was also somehow able to quote from a part of that thread (shown in his post #228). How is that so Azdgari?

So I'd like to ask a very simple question to screwtape and Azdgari: Are you in any way, shape or form, an Admin or Mod on this forum?

StarStuff, I saw your removed post, and I understand your frustration. But there's no need to get paranoid about what's happening. Your post got reported, a mod removed it as an initial response, and probably passed it up to an Admin. They'll produce a considered response in due course. Which might not be until after the holiday (admins have lives, y'know).

SS:

Quote

Azdgari was also somehow able to quote from a part of that thread (shown in his post #228). How is that so Azdgari?

As I said, steady on, StarStuff. Your post was up for about an hour. Plenty of time for Azd to quote from it in his reply before it was deleted. No need to call shenanigans.

Interesting post, though. The gist of it can be conveyed in one sentence:

Recently, Screwtape joined a Forum under false pretenses, with an ulterior motive, and then deliberately lied to and deceived that Forum's members and its administrators.

Is this true, Screwtape? No need to go into details, I know them. A yes or no would suffice.

Right off the bat I need to admit something, I'm a friend of Not On The Fence....I don't know her brother, but I don't want to allegedly deceive anyone here....

I don't see anything wrong with them not initially disclosing that they are brother and sister. Let me give an example :

I work in the same store as my mom, some people know we're related, probably an equal amount of people don't know (it's a big store, about 150 employees). It's not something we advertise, but it's not something we deny either. It just doesn't come up that often. But of course if someone were to ask either of us straight out we're not going to lie. And please don't think that there's any kind of priviledge or advantage to working with a parent....we're not the only parent/child combination in the store, as well there are several married/dating couples working there. No favourtism.

But back to the original subject. I'm not religious, but I'm lucky I don't come from a religious family....for the most part. Most of us are somewhere between agnostic and atheist, but I do have a cousin who's a minister. But we support him, and he has no problem with most of the rest of us being on the other side. Open-mindess and understanding, it would make the world a better place.

I appreciate what you are trying to do. However, until you understand what my points are and are able to represent them correctly, I have to invite you to withhold your observations and advice. You seem to be hung up on them concealing their relationship and the hurt feelings. I have no problem apologizing for hurt feelings. To me the biggest point to be addressed is SS's style of argumentation.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Nobody has crucified you. Nobody has even rough you up. Az and I have asked you to look at what you have said and admit it has been off base. This use of hyperbole is unnecessary, makes discussing anything with you almost impossible and makes you look whiny. Casting yourself a the martyred messiah and Az and me as your Roman tormentors is just self-indulgent and silly.

Recently, Screwtape joined a Forum under false pretenses, with an ulterior motive, and then deliberately lied to and deceived that Forum's members and its administrators.

Is this true, Screwtape? No need to go into details, I know them. A yes or no would suffice.

I did not see it, but if that was what Star Stuff's post said, then I can guess why it was removed. Among other reasons, he has no idea whatsoever what I said to forum members or admins. So for him to declare I lied (as if he would know) is yet another big fat lie from Star Stuff. SS, the more you try to squirm out of this, the worse your decisions become. If that is what you posted, it was really low.

No. I did not join a forum under false pretenses. I joined the forum without pretense. The events that SS seems to have divulged[1] happened after I had joined and participated in that forum. Some members and admins there disagreed with me on a point of view. There the forum is generally run by vox populi. So, I encouraged members here of like mind to join and post, hoping to change the direction of that forum. Deception helped, but success of the plan did not hinge on it. Volume and numbers counted. I did not lie to any members and or administrators. Neither did I at any point say anyone should lie. Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

You are all still stuck on the distration - Star Stuff's lie. The question is not whether he lied. He did. The questions about it are whether he was justified, whether it was malicious, whether it was harmful and whether it was relevant to the discussion. I would now answer those questions[2] as "maybe from a certain point of view", "no", "no" and "yes".

Similarly, to say I have lied in my life is a distraction. I have lied. I do lie. By signing in as "Screwtape", I lie to each and every person here. It is intentional. But it is not malicious and it is not harmful. I do it for security and I feel justified in that. I think Star Stuff would agree, since I have never heard of anyone with a surname of "Stuff". So this accusation was just another giant dodge by SS. He is desperate to try to get the discussion off of him and away from what I have been asking be addressed for several pages now.

I want to reemphasize, the main problem I have with Mr Stuff is not this lie of his. At this stage of the game, that is trivial. It is his intellectual dishonesty. It is the fact that he cannot even bring himself to admit he lied. It is the way he repeatedly portrayed my arguments in ways that I obviously did not mean them even after I corrected him. It is the way he addresses my points with mere handwaving denial. I laid out my arguments and included examples. I expect a more serious response than the malarkey he has posted.

The rules here do not just apply to theists. If we are going to be rational, then we cannot make excuses just because the irrationality comes from one of our own. We have to help each other see the holes in our logic and rationale. I am not doing this because I dislike him. I am doing this because he has to see where his blind spots are. I want to get past this and make up. I do not want hurt feelings on either side. But I also cannot just walk away from this. He cannot continue to argue in the fashion he has in this thread. He cannot remain blind to where he went wrong. If we let him do that, then we are all hypocrites and the theists will be absolutely justified in calling us that.

I don't see anything wrong with them not initially disclosing that they are brother and sister. Let me give an example :

I work in the same store as my mom, ...<snip>

I get what you are saying. I think the situation in this thread is a little different. SS portrayed himself as giving neutral advice to a stranger about her parents. But he wasn't. He wasn't giving her suggestions that were in her best interest. His "neutral" advice was not neutral at all. His interests were mingled in too. They were actually his parents. His advice was to follow his course of action. Any suggestion that contradicted that was a threat to him. He has a vested interest in her not telling them. His advice may be the right advice - I am not saying it isn't. The point was that this was relevant in the discussion.

You seem to be hung up on them concealing their relationship and the hurt feelings. I have no problem apologizing for hurt feelings.

It's not simply a matter of hurt feelings. What I'm saying is that your reaction to StarStuff's revelation was over the top, questioning his integrity and accusing him of betraying this community. No one else reacted like that, and it wasn't warranted.

Quote

To me the biggest point to be addressed is SS's style of argumentation.

I don't agree, but either way, you could still acknowledge that your overreaction contributed significantly to the overall increase in heat.

Quote

I did not see it, but if that was what Star Stuff's post said, then I can guess why it was removed. Among other reasons, he has no idea whatsoever what I said to forum members or admins. So for him to declare I lied (as if he would know) is yet another big fat lie from Star Stuff

This is my mistake, Screwtape; that sentence was my summary, not StarStuff's. I should have made that clearer, sorry.

To me the biggest point to be addressed is SS's style of argumentation.

I don't agree, but either way, you could still acknowledge that your overreaction contributed significantly to the overall increase in heat.

This is confusing, Gnu. On the one hand you believe (and I agree) that Star Stuff's witholding information about his personal stake in the outcome of the discussion isn't a big deal. Yet, on the other hand, here you say that you don't consider that the biggest point to be addressed is the fallacious and intellectually dishonest style of argumentation that Star Stuff has employed.

This raises the question of what point it is that you believe is the "biggest point to be addressed". Both Screwtape and I consider Star Stuff's use of hyperbole and fallacies to stonewall and dodge points to be the main issue in the thread at this point, since they prevent rational discussion. Star Stuff obviously considers countering these claims (by whatever means) to be a big issue in the thread at this point, since he feels insulted by them. So to the members actually participating in the thread's argument, the "point" that Screwtape described really is the "biggest point to be addressed", no?

On the one hand you believe (and I agree) that Star Stuff's witholding information about his personal stake in the outcome of the discussion isn't a big deal.

OK.

Quote

Yet, on the other hand, here you say that you don't consider that the biggest point to be addressed is the fallacious and intellectually dishonest style of argumentation that Star Stuff has employed.

Yes (but it's only my opinion, of course).

Unlike Screwtape, I think that it's OK for StarStuff to say, as he just did, that he had been crucified on this thread. I realize that he isn't actually accusing you of nailing him to a cross. It's a figure of speech, a metaphorical expression of his feelings. It's a rhetorical device. It's not misrepresentation.

Just as he originally described Screwtape's strategies as "carpet-bombing" and "throwing grenades". That's how they felt to him. That's not using "dishonest fallacies". It's using metaphor. It's not a big deal.

Quote

This raises the question of what point it is that you believe is the "biggest point to be addressed".

I already said, Azd. Screwtape's over-reaction to StarStuff's revelation. It was over the top. You're concerned about StarStuff's style of argumentation. He's rather more concerned at Screwtape's accusations that he's somehow "betrayed" this community because of his fundamental "lack of integrity". I think he's got his priorities right.

It's not simply a matter of hurt feelings. What I'm saying is that your reaction to StarStuff's revelation was over the top, questioning his integrity and accusing him of betraying this community. No one else reacted like that, and it wasn't warranted.

I am prepared to accept that some of my responses were harsher than warranted. I would even apologize for them. I am honest enough to do that.

But why is it that he gets the free pass? Why is it that I don't get a free pass for being taken aback by his admission? You are saying his outrage is okay because it is due to my alleged over reaction. But my initial outrage at his deception is irrelevant because...you think in the end it was fine?

This is my mistake, Screwtape; that sentence was my summary, not StarStuff's. I should have made that clearer, sorry.

That was clear. I was saying I did not read SS's original post and all I have to go by was your summary. So if I said something that did not apply, something that did not fit with SS's post, that was why.

Unlike Screwtape, I think that it's OK for StarStuff to say, as he just did, that he had been crucified on this thread. I realize that he isn't actually accusing you of nailing him to a cross. It's a figure of speech, a metaphorical expression of his feelings. It's a rhetorical device. It's not misrepresentation.

1. Of course he did not mean it literally. But it is an extreme statement. It is an over the top rhetorical device. And it is significantly adding to the ill will in the thread. 2. Why is it okay for him to express his feelings in an over the top manner, but when I do it is The Big Problem in this thread?3. Is it too much to ask to have a discussion without resorting to over the top rhetorical devices? Jesus H christ on a stick, this is supposed to be a forum that promotes rationality.

Just as he originally described Screwtape's strategies as "carpet-bombing" and "throwing grenades". That's how they felt to him. That's not using "dishonest fallacies". It's using metaphor.

First of all, I have been saying all along that he was responding to his emotions and not my posts. Thank you for confirming that. That is not a reasonable way to conduct a conversation. That is a sure way to foment frustration, and if you are a theist, end up in the ER.

Secondly, metaphors a fine to use, if they are applicable. I found his to be inaccurate and insulting. I correct him several times and he continued. He also dodged half a dozen points and ignored multiple questions. Is that okay too, since later in the conversation I hurt his feelings?

Wrong. It is a big fucking deal. Particularly when I corrected him on it twice. Why do his feelings trump reality? Why does he get to continue to use language that I find does not convey my meaning or intent? Why does he get to conflate my position with beating up old people and cancer patients? That is like Ann Coulter asking liberals why they hate America. On what planet is that arguing with integrity?

Your big hang up seems to be for people[1] use moderate language to keep the discussion at a civil level. That has to work both ways. Why do you not hold him to the same standard?

I am prepared to accept that some of my responses were harsher than warranted.

Which is exactly what I said in my very first post (#212):

Quote

The fact that StarStuff and NOTF chose to keep the sibling nature of their relationship secret is equally unremarkable. Accusations of dishonesty or lying by omission are unwarranted.

Unfortunately, it's taken you 34 posts to acknowledge it. But better late than never.

Quote

I would even apologize for them.

Why the conditional? If you think that an apology is appropriate, then just give it. It may or may not be accepted, but that's up to StarStuff. Just do it.

Quote

But why is it that he gets the free pass? Why is it that I don't get a free pass for being taken aback by his admission?

Now this is a misrepresentation. I'm not giving SS a free pass, I have criticized him, and I've said that he has something to apologize for. From my second post on this thread:

Quote

To start with the conclusion: my considered opinion is that all of you have something to apologize for.

That included StarStuff; I said he handled the revelation badly, I also said that he said things in the heat of the moment which he shouldn't have done. (Do I think he should apologize for stonewalling and dodging? See below).

Quote

You are saying his outrage is okay because it is due to my alleged over reaction. But my initial outrage at his deception is irrelevant because...you think in the end it was fine?

There's an obvious difference. StarStuff and NOTF's 'deception' wasn't aimed at you personally. You happened to be one of the people talking to StarStuff at the time he decided to put his cards on the table, but that's still not a valid reason for you to be outraged. Nobody else was. So you over-reacted. On the other hand, your over-reaction was targeted specifically at StarStuff, so his outrage is understandable.

Quote

First of all, I have been saying all along that he was responding to his emotions and not my posts. Thank you for confirming that. That is not a reasonable way to conduct a conversation.

I refer back to my observation that the emotional tone of this thread was established by L6 referring to all previous posters who disagreed with him (which included StarStuff) as 'spineless cowards'. Both you and Azd endorsed his comments. ("F**k yeah", you said in your first post on this thread).

Is calling your opponents in a debate 'spineless cowards' a reasonable way to conduct a conversation (especially in your first contribution to the debate)? I don't think so. StarStuff didn't think so, and objected. And so did other members, which demonstrates that StarStuff's (at this point) concealed relationship with his sister was irrelevent to what he was saying. He was objecting to what L6 said on his own terms.

Quote

Wrong. It is a big fucking deal.

Swear-words tend to raise the temperature.

Quote

Your big hang up seems to be for people (1) use moderate language to keep the discussion at a civil level. That has to work both ways. Why do you not hold him to the same standard?

(1). by "people" you apparently only mean me.

See above. 'Spineless cowards' is also immoderate language. So I'm not only meaning you.

Azd:

Quote

You intentionally cut out the part of my post that indicated why Star Stuff's style of argumentation was a problem

I was merely trying to answer the gist of your post, Azd, I wasn't trying to avoid anything. So I'll address your point:

Quote

Both Screwtape and I consider Star Stuff's use of hyperbole and fallacies to stonewall and dodge points to be the main issue in the thread at this point, since they prevent rational discussion.

StarStuff made his reveal at the top of page 4 (#93). Screwtape then made his accusations of betrayal and so on. StarStuff reacted angrily. Screwtape later accused StarStuff of dodging. At the bottom of the page (#119), you accused StarStuff of intellectual dishonesty.

So let's ignore anything that happened after that. The accusations have been made, so they should be judged on what's already happened. Agreed?

If so, I suggest you resolve the matter by asking the mods to make a judgment, by simply reporting one or more of StarStuff's posts prior to #119 for whatever you're complaining about, dodging, or dishonesty, or stonewalling, and letting them decide.

I refer back to my observation that the emotional tone of this thread was established by L6 referring to all previous posters who disagreed with him (which included StarStuff) as 'spineless cowards'. Both you and Azd endorsed his comments.

Now, here you're making it look like I was endorsing L6's "spineless coward" comment. Can you support this accusation? Notice how I only quoted some of his post. That wasn't done randomly.

Quote

I was merely trying to answer the gist of your post, Azd, I wasn't trying to avoid anything.

Bold mine. If true, then you were doing it without trying.

Quote

StarStuff made his reveal at the top of page 4 (#93). Screwtape then made his accusations of betrayal and so on. StarStuff reacted angrily. Screwtape later accused StarStuff of dodging. At the bottom of the page (#119), you accused StarStuff of intellectual dishonesty.

And Star Stuff was dodging Screwtape's posts through hyperbole and stonewalling on page 3, behaviour which Screwtape and I both called him on later. This was before anything to do with his "reveal". The only relevance of Star Stuff's revelation of a personal relationship to the situation was that it cast light on why he was reacting so emotionally.

When I made my accusation in post (#119), it was - most immediately - in reference to the post directly above it (#118). Star Stuff had hand-waved away Screwtape's comprehensive, reasoned post (#117) to Not on the fence. Throughout the page, he had avoided addressing the points that Screwtape had brought up, and when that stonewalling culminated in post #119, I had had enough and called him on the dishonesty of his tactics.

You seem to be paying attention only to things that directly pertain to Star Stuff's revelation of his personal relationship. Why is that?

The thing in life that I find the most difficult of all is letting go of things and moving on. I often struggle to forgive others their mistakes but I find it even harder, maybe even impossible, to forgive myself of my own.

The worst part about my life, quite probably, is the cost of carrying an ever increasing weight of that which I won't let go of and I'm too good at finding reasons to hold onto the stress.

Everyone fucks up and sometimes we didn't mean any harm when we did. Sometimes it's best all round to just walk away and get on with something else.

I feel it's a cost vs reward thing. Although I'm hopeless at following my own logic at times I do feel that the logic plays.

Logged

I've left WWGHA now, so do everyone else a favour and don't bother replying to my old posts and necromancing my threads.